Ex Parte Gerber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 4, 2016

13019282 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/019,282 02/01/2011
23363 7590 11/08/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert B. Gerber JR.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
76779/T442 1159
EXAMINER
HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT B. GERBER, JR. and DA YID D. ALLEN
Appeal2015-007146
Application 13/019,282
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KAL YAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007146
Application 13/019,282
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system and method for managing
location privacy settings for computing devices. Spec. 2:21-3 :2.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A system for managing location privacy of
location based service applications, the system
compnsmg:
a computing device; and
a location privacy unit accessible by the user over
a link wherein the location privacy unit allows the user to
set a location privacy setting for one or more location
based service applications that are executed on the
computing device and controls the access of each of the
one or more location based service applications to
location information about the computing device based
on the location privacy setting associated with each of the
one or more locations based service applications.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8-11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hose (US 2008/0070550 Al; Mar. 20,
2008). Final Act. 3-6.
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief filed
February 23, 2015 ("Br."), Final Office Action mailed July 24, 2013 ("Final
Act."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed on April 28, 2015 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2015-007146
Application 13/019,282
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hose and Rotes (US 2010/0240398 Al;
Sept. 23, 2010). Final Act. 7-10.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hose, Rotes, and Arcens (US 2004/017 6104 A 1; Sept. 9,
2004). Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hose, Rotes, Arcens, and Sjothun (US 8,107,973
Bl; Jan. 31, 2012). Final Act. 11-13.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hose, Rotes, and Moore (US 2006/0004641 Al; Jan. 5,
2006). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hose, Rotes, and Sjothun. Final Act. 14-17.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a location privacy unit that allows
a user to set a location privacy setting for one or more location-based
applications that are executed on a computing device and controlling each
application's access to location information about the computing device
based on that setting.
Appellants argue that Hose fails to disclose the above limitation
recited in claim 1. Br. 5-6. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants summarize
portions of Hose and state that the disclosure of Figures 4, 5, and paragraph
61 show that the limitation is not taught. See id.
3
Appeal2015-007146
Application 13/019,282
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's findings and responses and
consider the Examiner to have provided a detailed explanation supported by
sufficient evidence to show Hose discloses the claimed location privacy unit
and its functions, as recited in independent claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4; see
also Ans. 2--4. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
We note the Examiner cites to passages and teachings of Hose not addressed
by the Appellants. As such, Appellants have not rebut the Examiner's
findings. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner erred and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that independent claim 11 is patentable over Hose
using the same rationale as claim 1. See Br. 6. As discussed above, we are
not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 and as such sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
Appellants also argue that claims 2-10 and 12-18 are patentable for
the same reasons as their respective independent claims. Id. At 5-7. We are
not persuaded by these arguments because they involve the same issues
addressed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-10 and 12-18.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 8-11, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 and 12-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2015-007146
Application 13/019,282
AFFIR1\1ED
5